aaron.ballman added a comment. In D153156#4598988 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D153156#4598988>, @rZhBoYao wrote:
> In D153156#4598915 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D153156#4598915>, @steelannelida > wrote: > >> Unfortunately the option -Wno-reserved-user-defined-literal fails after this: >> >> #define MYTHING "_something_" >> >> const char* f() { >> return "ONE"MYTHING"TWO"; >> } >> >> $ clang -Wno-reserved-user-defined-literal repro.cxx >> repro.cxx:4:15: error: no matching literal operator for call to >> 'operator""MYTHING' with arguments of types 'const char *' and 'unsigned >> long', and no matching literal operator template >> 4 | return "ONE"MYTHING"TWO"; >> | ^ >> 1 error generated. > > This is conforming right? Correct me if I'm wrong. My reading of > https://eel.is/c++draft/lex.pptoken#3.3 is that "ONE"MYTHING"TWO" is a single > preprocessing-token during phase 3 (https://eel.is/c++draft/lex.phases#1.3). > Can @aaron.ballman confirm this? The diagnostic behavior is correct. `MYTHING` doesn't get expanded until phase 4 (http://eel.is/c++draft/lex.phases#1.4), so this appears as `"ONE"MYTHING` as a single preprocessor token: https://eel.is/c++draft/lex.ext#nt:user-defined-string-literal and that token is an invalid UDL. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D153156/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D153156 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
